2022 (3) TMI 1441 - HC - Income Tax

Scope of alternate appropriate remedy - Revision u/s 263 - case of the petitioners that they are not satisfied with the reasoning and findings given by the Commissioner in its impugned order - Whether this Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and substitute the findings of an authority and appropriate remedy for the petitioners will be to file appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order? - HELD THAT - This writ petition is dismissed solely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal. If the petitioners file appeal against the impugned order within four weeks from date before the learned Tribunal it will not raise the point of limitation and will decide such appeal on merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Further since the petitioners are enjoying the interim order in this matter since 7th of December 2010 the aforesaid interim order will continue only for a period of ten weeks from date with liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate application for any interim relief before the learned Tribunal if so advised and which will be considered by the learned Tribunal strictly in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the order; Availability of alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal; Continuation of interim order.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging an order dated 26th March, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court, after considering the impugned order, declined to interfere primarily due to the availability of an appeal process before the Tribunal and the absence of inherent lack of jurisdiction by the authority. The petitioners expressed dissatisfaction with the reasoning and findings of the Commissioner but were reminded that the Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority in such cases. The appropriate remedy advised was to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order.

The Court emphasized that in the exercise of Constitutional writ jurisdiction, it cannot substitute the findings of an authority. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed solely based on the existence of an alternative remedy through a statutory appeal. The petitioners were given a four-week window to file an appeal before the Tribunal without facing any limitation issues. The Tribunal was instructed to decide on the appeal's merits without being influenced by any observations made in the Court's order.

Additionally, the Court addressed the interim relief enjoyed by the petitioners since 7th December, 2010. It was stated that the interim order would continue for a further ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The petitioners were granted liberty to seek appropriate interim relief before the Tribunal if needed, with the condition that the Tribunal would evaluate such requests strictly in accordance with the law.